Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It also depends on who Adam and Eve really were. Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, or some earlier form of monkey.

We're not talking about monkeys.

Everything is talking about monkeys.

We aren't talking about monkeys because Homo Sapiens aren't monkeys and didn't evolve from monkeys.

You clearly misunderstand evolution and the Homo sapiens species.

Neanderthals are Homo Sapiens, they are the same species as we are, but they are a subgroup of our species, they are Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis.

As for communion and the grace of God. We cannot say that it is exclusive to the Homo Sapiens species. In fact, we even have holy men and bishops today who argue that if we make contact with other intelligent life out there, that we should extend the Gospel to them as well, and seek to baptize them.

Humans evolve and if The Lord tarries further, we will continue to evolve, possibly to the point where our descendants "become" another subgroup of Homo Sapiens. It isn't a natural law or our just being Homo Sapiens that grants us the status of being higher than the angels and made in the image of God. But rather it is that God made all humans, all Homo Sapiens after his own image and likeness, regardless of their brain development, physical development and other such traits.

Some scientists classify them as homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and modern man as homo sapiens sapiens, and others classify them simply as homo neanderthalensis. In the first case, they would be a subspecies of homo sapiens, and only in the second case would they be considered a different species.

Not that anybody probably cares, but this sort of thinking points out the huge problem with our highly Aristotelian system of taxonomy. In the end it makes no difference whether Neanderthal man is classified as a 'different species', because even if the most specific species of Greek philosophy exist as concrete things, man has proved himself to be completely inept when it comes to discerning what these most specific species are. If Neanderthal man still lived, whether they could commune would not depend on whether we scientifically classify them as a separate species or not.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

We aren't talking about monkeys because Homo Sapiens aren't monkeys and didn't evolve from monkeys.

You clearly misunderstand evolution and the Homo sapiens species.

This all depends on who you ask. Firstly, new evidence suggests we are more closely related to Orangutan than Chimps (yes, both apes). However, we, according to science, all come from the same Order, so we are all connected. Use which ever word you like, but according to science, all animals are related; therefore, it’s all about monkeys, or rats, or birds, or whatever. Unless I clearly misunderstand…again.

The subspecies is a very, very recent idea I first heard about it was around 2009-2010. This is still open for debate and in no way universally accepted. It is also based on the notion Neanderthals and Sapiens interbred normally, not as a rarity or even at all. I was under the belief evolution worked with fact, not possibility. “To influence evolution and phylogeny, interbreeding must be constant and genetically influent.”

As for communion and the grace of God. We cannot say that it is exclusive to the Homo Sapiens species. In fact, we even have holy men and bishops today who argue that if we make contact with other intelligent life out there, that we should extend the Gospel to them as well, and seek to baptize them.

I understood your view was holy men and bishops were not scientists and those who took a literal sense of Creation were to be dismissed as lacking in proper education. But these men are ok because they are closer to your view? What evidence, scientifically speaking, is there of an advanced alien race outside of our own planet? None. In fact, people who run around talking about this “evidence” are joked about. Even if there were an advanced alien species traveling through the universe and they decide to stop by and introduce themselves, do you really think they would look at our primitive state, compared to theirs, and believe in any religion from here? Doubtful. We can hypothetical all day. Those whacky aliens…

Humans evolve and if The Lord tarries further, we will continue to evolve, possibly to the point where our descendants "become" another subgroup of Homo Sapiens. It isn't a natural law or our just being Homo Sapiens that grants us the status of being higher than the angels and made in the image of God. But rather it is that God made all humans, all Homo Sapiens after his own image and likeness, regardless of their brain development, physical development and other such traits.

According to the science produced on this forum from evolutionists, as I understand it, a theory or hypothesis is valid until someone can prove it invalid (at least that is what I have been told here). So, I came up with a perfectly acceptable idea and unless you can prove it invalid, outside your opinion, it stands as fact.

Some scientists classify them as homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and modern man as homo sapiens sapiens, and others classify them simply as homo neanderthalensis. In the first case, they would be a subspecies of homo sapiens, and only in the second case would they be considered a different species.

Not that anybody probably cares, but this sort of thinking points out the huge problem with our highly Aristotelian system of taxonomy. In the end it makes no difference whether Neanderthal man is classified as a 'different species', because even if the most specific species of Greek philosophy exist as concrete things, man has proved himself to be completely inept when it comes to discerning what these most specific species are. If Neanderthal man still lived, whether they could commune would not depend on whether we scientifically classify them as a separate species or not.

Yep exactly.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

We aren't talking about monkeys because Homo Sapiens aren't monkeys and didn't evolve from monkeys.

You clearly misunderstand evolution and the Homo sapiens species.

This all depends on who you ask. Firstly, new evidence suggests we are more closely related to Orangutan than Chimps (yes, both apes). However, we, according to science, all come from the same Order, so we are all connected. Use which ever word you like, but according to science, all animals are related; therefore, it’s all about monkeys, or rats, or birds, or whatever. Unless I clearly misunderstand…again.

Of course we are all connected, and you are right in saying we are members of the same Order. We are all Primates. But you clearly misunderstand it and oversimplify it as though it were an A = B sort of comparison, this always seems to be an issue various kinds of fundamentalists have with things.

Humans, Apes, Chimpanzees and Orangutans are all members of the same Order. Order is about the 6th level of classification.

For humans, we are classified under the Order of Primates. Within that Order, we are of the family of Hominidae, of the tribe of Hominini, genus Homo and species Homo Sapiens.

We are "related" to apes, chimpanzees and such through our Order.

If you want a parallel, then look at things like dogs. Dogs/Wolves, Cats (domestic and others), Foxes, Bears and others are all members of the Carnivora Order. Therefore, they are all "related" and share a common ancestry through that Order. But cats clearly aren't dogs, foxes clearly aren't bears, etc...

Or for another parallel, look at horses, zebras, rhinos, onagers, tapirs and donkeys. They are all members of the Perissodactyla Order. They all share that common ancestry, but (for the most part) they aren't equivalent to each other or "like" each other other than the common ancestry.

For all of those mentioned above, we are all of the Class of Mammalia. We are all "mammals". We are related at that level, but we aren't equivalent or the same.

The subspecies is a very, very recent idea I first heard about it was around 2009-2010. This is still open for debate and in no way universally accepted. It is also based on the notion Neanderthals and Sapiens interbred normally, not as a rarity or even at all. I was under the belief evolution worked with fact, not possibility. “To influence evolution and phylogeny, interbreeding must be constant and genetically influent.”

You are right, there are two interpretations, one says that we are the same species, and another that we are two different species. But is salvation connected to species?

As for communion and the grace of God. We cannot say that it is exclusive to the Homo Sapiens species. In fact, we even have holy men and bishops today who argue that if we make contact with other intelligent life out there, that we should extend the Gospel to them as well, and seek to baptize them.

I understood your view was holy men and bishops were not scientists and those who took a literal sense of Creation were to be dismissed as lacking in proper education. But these men are ok because they are closer to your view? What evidence, scientifically speaking, is there of an advanced alien race outside of our own planet? None. In fact, people who run around talking about this “evidence” are joked about. Even if there were an advanced alien species traveling through the universe and they decide to stop by and introduce themselves, do you really think they would look at our primitive state, compared to theirs, and believe in any religion from here? Doubtful. We can hypothetical all day. Those whacky aliens…

Humans evolve and if The Lord tarries further, we will continue to evolve, possibly to the point where our descendants "become" another subgroup of Homo Sapiens. It isn't a natural law or our just being Homo Sapiens that grants us the status of being higher than the angels and made in the image of God. But rather it is that God made all humans, all Homo Sapiens after his own image and likeness, regardless of their brain development, physical development and other such traits.

According to the science produced on this forum from evolutionists, as I understand it, a theory or hypothesis is valid until someone can prove it invalid (at least that is what I have been told here). So, I came up with a perfectly acceptable idea and unless you can prove it invalid, outside your opinion, it stands as fact.

You clearly don't understand my view then and you don't understand the positions of those holy men either. You are putting your Modern Fundamentalist views on them. They weren't fundamentalists, and if you want to be, then that's okay, just don't think you're being more Orthodox by being a Fundamentalist, in fact, you're being more Protestant than anything else. They believed in the literal sense of Genesis, but not for the same reasons you do and you cannot super-impose 20th Century Biblical literalism and Fundamentalism back onto the holy persons of the Church.

You have seemed to try to impose your own view and interpretation on the Church and seem to assume the Church has to be "this way" and has to essentially be "fundamentalist" or it isn't really the Church and has changed. You have gone so far as to condemn the church for "changing" or "innovating" by not being fundamentalist or conforming to modern fundamentalism and Biblical literalism (which is largely a product of heretical Western Christianity and western literalism/fundamentalism)

Actually no, we aren't devolving. You cannot "devolve" you can only evolve. Devolution would assume "winding back the clock" which isn't possible.

Also, theories don't work as you are suggesting, in fact, you are treating your opinion as a theory, which it certainly is not. Opinions are not assumed true till proven false. Theories are deeper and more thoroughly tested and "proven" than opinions or hypothesis are.

According to the Orthodox definition of 'personhood' and the 'soul' (things which I do not understand), would all of the other extinct species of human like Neanderthals or Homo Erectus be considered people and be allowed to receive the Sacraments like people? Or would they still be considered animals? Where do we draw the line between humans and animals? Would the Orthodox definition of personhood apply to just homo sapiens or would it apply to ALL of the species under the Homo genus? I know that it is sort of irrelevant considering that all of the other Homo species are extinct except for us, but it still is very interesting. And I also read that we have enough DNA to clone a Neanderthal in the near future. If this were to happen, could that Neanderthal become an Orthodox Christian?

Some scientists classify them as homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and modern man as homo sapiens sapiens, and others classify them simply as homo neanderthalensis. In the first case, they would be a subspecies of homo sapiens, and only in the second case would they be considered a different species.

Not that anybody probably cares, but this sort of thinking points out the huge problem with our highly Aristotelian system of taxonomy. In the end it makes no difference whether Neanderthal man is classified as a 'different species', because even if the most specific species of Greek philosophy exist as concrete things, man has proved himself to be completely inept when it comes to discerning what these most specific species are. If Neanderthal man still lived, whether they could commune would not depend on whether we scientifically classify them as a separate species or not.

At least, it hopefully wouldn't/

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

Isn't this effectively a moot question in the light of current analysis of the human genome suggests to many scientists that most humans of non African descent have as much as 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. There is also another Homonid strain recently discovered in Siberia/Northern Asia that is neither Neanderthal nor early Homo sapiens, a portion of it's DNA survives only in Austronesians and Aborigines of the Pacific region.

To my knowledge the Orthodox among these populations do in fact receive communion.

A more simple answer would be that if they could or would ask about Jesus Christ and we could teach them the Gospel and if they learn some basic things about the faith and could practice it, then yes, they can be baptized and communed.

Same thing for any other intelligent life.

Yet that is not a question that can ever be given since they are exinct.

A more simple answer would be that if they could or would ask about Jesus Christ and we could teach them the Gospel and if they learn some basic things about the faith and could practice it, then yes, they can be baptized and communed.

Same thing for any other intelligent life.

Yet that is not a question that can ever be given since they are exinct.

According to the Orthodox definition of 'personhood' and the 'soul' (things which I do not understand), would all of the other extinct species of human like Neanderthals or Homo Erectus be considered people and be allowed to receive the Sacraments like people? Or would they still be considered animals? Where do we draw the line between humans and animals? Would the Orthodox definition of personhood apply to just homo sapiens or would it apply to ALL of the species under the Homo genus? I know that it is sort of irrelevant considering that all of the other Homo species are extinct except for us, but it still is very interesting. And I also read that we have enough DNA to clone a Neanderthal in the near future. If this were to happen, could that Neanderthal become an Orthodox Christian?

A more simple answer would be that if they could or would ask about Jesus Christ and we could teach them the Gospel and if they learn some basic things about the faith and could practice it, then yes, they can be baptized and communed.

Same thing for any other intelligent life.

Yet that is not a question that can ever be given since they are exinct.

According to the Orthodox definition of 'personhood' and the 'soul' (things which I do not understand), would all of the other extinct species of human like Neanderthals or Homo Erectus be considered people and be allowed to receive the Sacraments like people? Or would they still be considered animals? Where do we draw the line between humans and animals? Would the Orthodox definition of personhood apply to just homo sapiens or would it apply to ALL of the species under the Homo genus? I know that it is sort of irrelevant considering that all of the other Homo species are extinct except for us, but it still is very interesting. And I also read that we have enough DNA to clone a Neanderthal in the near future. If this were to happen, could that Neanderthal become an Orthodox Christian?

As long as they are descended from Adam.

I think that's it.

It isn't that simple. Who is Adam? Do we understand him to be a literal single human being named Adam who lived 6,000-10,000 years ago and whose wife was literally made from his rib and named Eve?

A few things I noticed on here that I would like to address. Firstly, the notion that Neanderthals are merely an extinct subspecies of Homo Sapiens (our species) is bogus. It is a very recent notion (2009 I think) with not a lot of scientific evidence to support it. The fundamental flaw is that it assumes that Homo-Sapiens and Neanderthals constantly interbred with each other, when in reality, our interbreeding was very rare. This is why only non-African people have traces of Neanderthal blood in them, going even further, some scientists would even suggest that only Europeans have Neanderthal blood in them. This notion was probably developed by Protestant pseudo-scientists who did not want to admit the existence of another self-aware non-Homo Sapien species, so they basically tried to say that Neanderthals were just a type of Homo-Sapien like us because of their taboo with human evolution.

Secondly, someone mentioned 'de-evolving'. That's impossible. You can't 'de-evolve'. In fact, it goes against the principles of evolution because it assumes that evolution is supposed to produce traits that we would classify as being valuable or good--like long life or intelligence, when in reality, evolution only produces traits that will help us to reproduce the most efficiently. Take mice, they are one of the stupidest animals out there, but still an EXTREMELY successful species because of how capable they are of reproducing. On the other hand, take gorillas and chimpanzees. They are probably the most intelligent, cool animals out there other than humans, yet, evolutionarily speaking, they are not very successful species. The reason being that it takes a very long time for a baby chimp or gorilla to reach sexual maturity, and that they only reproduce like once every 2-4 years.

That being said, humans are not 'de-evolving'. Humans are the most evolutionarily successful species of all time. For all our idiotic stupidity, we're practically overpopulating ourselves with our 7 billion population. Evolutionarily speaking, all that matters is the fact that we are reproducing like bunnies, nothing else matters. Hell, maybe our stupidity is evolutionarily beneficial because it makes us more likely to have sex without condoms and thus produce more children to further increase our population. In fact, education even seems like it would be evolutionarily dangerous. Look at the more educated places in the world like Europe and you will see a trend for people to have less and less children. This is not good from an evolutionary standpoint. On the other hand, compare it to less educated places like Sub-Sahara Africa or the American South and you will see people reproducing like crazy--something which is evolutionarily beneficial.

According to the Orthodox definition of 'personhood' and the 'soul' (things which I do not understand), would all of the other extinct species of human like Neanderthals or Homo Erectus be considered people and be allowed to receive the Sacraments like people? Or would they still be considered animals? Where do we draw the line between humans and animals? Would the Orthodox definition of personhood apply to just homo sapiens or would it apply to ALL of the species under the Homo genus? I know that it is sort of irrelevant considering that all of the other Homo species are extinct except for us, but it still is very interesting. And I also read that we have enough DNA to clone a Neanderthal in the near future. If this were to happen, could that Neanderthal become an Orthodox Christian?

As long as they are descended from Adam.

I think that's it.

It isn't that simple. Who is Adam? Do we understand him to be a literal single human being named Adam who lived 6,000-10,000 years ago and whose wife was literally made from his rib and named Eve?

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

Are there any interbred species alive today?

EDIT: I should phrase this differently. Which species today regularly interbreed?

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.

You obviously misunderstand how evolution works.

Don’t believe everything that you breathe.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

If a human and a chimpanzee were to reproduce, could the offspring Commune? This is not entirely impossible. We've seen hybrids in the animal kingdom of creatures that are even more genetically diverse than humans and chimps that have been successful, so who's to say that a human and a chimp cannot reproduce? In fact, there are even some scientists who believe that the Bono genus (which includes Chimps) should be merged with the Homo genus (human species). Scientifically speaking, creatures of the same genus are capable of interbreeding.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.

You obviously misunderstand how evolution works.

Don’t believe everything that you breathe.

That's why I hold my breath.

And my time is a piece of wax fallin’ on a termite, who's chokin’ on the splinters.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Of humans and chimpanzees? Maybe. Western media certainly doesn't cover everything that goes on in third-world parts of the world. How do we know that some impoverished person in Africa (No racism intended, chimpanzees' natural habitat is Africa) didn't reproduce with a chimpanzee?

Quote

Which species today regularly interbreed?

Honestly? None regularly. Most only interbreed due to selective breeding--that is, humans interbreeding them. Such as mules--which is made from a horse and a donkey. Or the infamous liger.

Neanderthals may often be communing, depending on how you look at it. As I remember reading, anthropologists found that on average about 2-4% of people's DNA is from Neanderthals, due to intermixing in prehistoric times.

Of humans and chimpanzees? Maybe. Western media certainly doesn't cover everything that goes on in third-world parts of the world. How do we know that some impoverished person in Africa (No racism intended, chimpanzees' natural habitat is Africa) didn't reproduce with a chimpanzee?

Quote

Which species today regularly interbreed?

Honestly? None regularly. Most only interbreed due to selective breeding--that is, humans interbreeding them. Such as mules--which is made from a horse and a donkey. Or the infamous liger.

Neither of which produce offspring or offspring which survives on its own.

Neanderthals may often be communing, depending on how you look at it. As I remember reading, anthropologists found that on average about 2-4% of people's DNA is from Neanderthals, due to intermixing in prehistoric times.

Is that 2-4% contained in the 95% shared by chimps, 94% shared by rats or in what's left?

Neanderthals may often be communing, depending on how you look at it. As I remember reading, anthropologists found that on average about 2-4% of people's DNA is from Neanderthals, due to intermixing in prehistoric times.

Since most of my DNA (I think about 31/32nds of it) is from Western Europe, I probably have Neanderthal DNA. Should I stop taking communion? LOL!

Secondly, someone mentioned 'de-evolving'. That's impossible. You can't 'de-evolve'. In fact, it goes against the principles of evolution because it assumes that evolution is supposed to produce traits that we would classify as being valuable or good--like long life or intelligence, when in reality, evolution only produces traits that will help us to reproduce the most efficiently. Take mice, they are one of the stupidest animals out there, but still an EXTREMELY successful species because of how capable they are of reproducing. On the other hand, take gorillas and chimpanzees. They are probably the most intelligent, cool animals out there other than humans, yet, evolutionarily speaking, they are not very successful species. The reason being that it takes a very long time for a baby chimp or gorilla to reach sexual maturity, and that they only reproduce like once every 2-4 years.

That being said, humans are not 'de-evolving'. Humans are the most evolutionarily successful species of all time. For all our idiotic stupidity, we're practically overpopulating ourselves with our 7 billion population. Evolutionarily speaking, all that matters is the fact that we are reproducing like bunnies, nothing else matters. Hell, maybe our stupidity is evolutionarily beneficial because it makes us more likely to have sex without condoms and thus produce more children to further increase our population. In fact, education even seems like it would be evolutionarily dangerous. Look at the more educated places in the world like Europe and you will see a trend for people to have less and less children. This is not good from an evolutionary standpoint. On the other hand, compare it to less educated places like Sub-Sahara Africa or the American South and you will see people reproducing like crazy--something which is evolutionarily beneficial.

It rather depends on how you would honestly define evolution. A species reverting back to a more primitive and animalistic state, as mankind is blatantly doing, is not something I would consider to fit into the evolutionary model as it has been historically defined. It's a reversal of evolution, i.e., a de-evolving of a species, reverse evolution, or whatever phraseology you wish to use.